Sunday, March 14, 2010

Over on Facebook, Bike Pure asks: Tyler Hamilton Training company is under way, would you want your kids coached by him?

My thoughts: Geeze, holy insinuation of pure evil. Christ, the guy is entitled to make a living and he's not a child molester. If you're not going to allow him to work for his income, are you going to put him on the dole then? He's banned 8 years from holding any UCI/USACycling license, including a coaching one, can't utilize the Olympic Training Center, etc. What is it with the notion that once someone has been caught, sanctioned and served their suspension, they should be blackballed and blacklisted as if they were suspected Communists in 1950's McCarthy America and prevented from earning a living if it somehow involves a bicycle. By your implication, he shouldn't be allowed to work in a bike shop or be a bike messenger, either?

BESIDES, if you want to be pissed off at anyone, blame any PARENTS who would retain someone as their child's coach who you think is a bad influence.

At least Hamilton is out there trying to make a living - something not easy to do while battling clinical depression, let alone as an entrepreneur.

At the core the issue is that certain people believe that Hamilton must issue some David Millar-like apology before he can even be considered a legitimate human being entitled to be associated in any capacity, even an informal, unlicensed one, with competitive cycling. But just because he was convicted of doping doesn't mean that he has to proclaim his guilt - no matter how logical you would think that to be.

If he thinks he's innocent, or wants to continue to claim innocence even though he is guilty (if that's the case), then as distasteful as it is for certain people, you have to suck it up or get your government to pass a law mandating the kind of behavior you want to see Tyler forced to engage-in (public confession?).

Tyler got a second chance to be a UCI-licensed road professional. He blew that. But last time I checked, he wasn't advertising his services under the guise of the UCI, so why carp that he shouldn't be allowed to earn a living in the free market, and instead, why not educate parents about the dangers of doping so that they can include a chapter on the topic in the moral and ethical training of their children. Then they won't want to work with Tyler Hamilton or maybe they will because they'll engage in some difficult calculus that includes a variable on persecution.

14 comments:

"What is it with the notion that once someone has been caught, sanctioned and served their suspension, they should be blackballed and blacklisted "

- That's fine except Tyler hasn't served his suspension yet.

I don't need a mea culpa, but it does seem logical that until he shows some effort to acknowledge his offenses and some attempt to use his experience to clean up the sport...then you can assume that he hasn't changed his attitude regarding doping.

Given that, I have the same question..." why would you trust your kid to someone who has shown such bad judgment and a continued lack of responsibility".

Beyond that, Tyler's success and notoriety was garnered as a result of his cheating. Why would you want to reward that behavior. If he took shortcuts to win, what makes you think that he'd be a good choice to advice you on how to excel dope free.

"What makes you think that he'd be a good choice to advice you on how to excel dope free."?

Perhaps because he has enjoyed success consistently, throughout his career...and may not have been doping the entire time. Unless you need coaching on how to win L-B-L, he probably can help some bratty kid do better in the local Wednesday night training criterium.

The coach I would think that people would be up in arms about, wondering about sending their kids to, is Mike Fraysse. Sheesh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Fraysse

I had no idea that he and Eddie B. were involved in the blood doping logistics, as I thought it was all Ed Burke.

"In fact I'll content that the greater the talent, the less likely that the athlete has had to take the time to consider how to extract the most from his God given gifts."

I've heard this before many times, the assumption being that the naturally-gifted athlete hasn't had to work for his success because it comes solely as a result of super-natural god-given talent. Sounds like one of those "obvious" beliefs that one just "takes on faith" ... though it would be interesting to measure through actual scientific study... Is a crappy cat 3 a better coach than a successful pro, assuming they've both had the same coaching education opportunities...

dope or no dope - hes seen and done it all training wise. im sure he can add some valuable insight into what makes an elite champion. plus the stories...can you imagine the stories that guys got? id be proud to have him coach my son or daughter. same goes for Papp.

Even a euro-pro has to start somewhere, and if he's American, he may have raced a junior/cat 3-4 event (and perhaps won it).

As for "the greater the talent, the less likely that the athlete has had to take the time to consider how to extract the most from his God given gifts," who knows? I'm not sure what you're contending...is coaching knowledge acquired only through experience or through formal training or a combination of both?

But as for not knowing what's needed to win a cat3 race...well, it's the same anywhere: fitness, the tactical understanding of when to use that fitness, good bike handling, strategic knowledge of how to race and win as an individual...

This is a silly argument. Just start comparing Hamilton to individual coaches and we can pick a "victor" from each match-up.

Easy there, Dirty. By "gear" we can only assume that you mean a training jersey and shorts, or use of an SRM...it's one thing to question an ex-rider's suitability as a coach, another entirely to imply that he's providing "gear" to his clients. Tsk Tsk. 5 demerits.

Pappillon welcomes your comments and encourages your participation. However, in commenting, you agree that you will not:1) Post material that infringes on the rights of any third party, including intellectual property, privacy or publicity rights. 2) Post material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, slanderous, hateful, or embarrassing to any other person or entity as determined by Pappillon in its sole discretion. 3) Impersonate another person.